Timm Beichelt

Politics of the European Union Lecture winter semester 2009/10 07.12.2009 – Policies and policy-making in the EU

Plan of lecture 19.10.

Introduction – European Studies and political science

14.12. Policy-making in Europe I

26.10.

Theorizing European integration 4.1. I

Policy-making in Europe II

2.11.

How to write a term paper in a German university

Between Paradise and Power: Europe in the World

9.11.

Theorizing European integration 18.1. II

European politics and democracy

16.11.

Theorizing European integration 25.1. III

Towards new paradigms? The end of integration and EU skepticism

23.11.

Guest speaker: Where are we with the Lisbon Treaty

Final exam

30.11.

The institutions of the European Union I

7.12.

The institutions of the European Union II

11.1.

1.2.

Final exam -

100 points, 100 minutes 70%: facts/knowledge questions, for example -

-

Voting weights in Council Major aims of Common Agricultural Policy Current Members of Eurozone

30%: interpretation questions, for example -

What are major problems of the new balance of power in the Council after Lisbon? What is the major claim of constructivist approaches in European integration theory?

Final exam – grading 1. Result above 50% - passed, between 1.0 - 4.0 2. Result between 25% and 50% - repeat exam is offered in first week of summer semester 3. Result below 25% - no repeat exam offered Results of final grade: average of first and repeat exam. For example:

-

5.0 and 1.0 = 3.0 (final grade) 5.0 and 3.0 = 4.0 (final grade) 5.0 and 4.0 = 5.0 (final grade)

Structure of lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

The political system (II)

EU policy cycle

Structure of lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

Policies and arenas “Whether or not the European Union emerges as the preferred arena for collective policy-making depends of the movements of a policy pendulum between the magnetic field of the domestic arena and the magnetic field of the transnational arena. Wider global frameworks, other European fora, and smaller groupings of neighbors recurrently offer alternative channels of cooperation. Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.” Adapted from: Wallace/Wallace (2000: 39-40)

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

Adapted from: Wallace/Wallace (2000: 39-40)

EU Arena

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

Adapted from: Wallace/Wallace (2000: 39-40)

EU Arena

Policies and arenas The context includes: – the inadequacy of the individual states – globalization – the specificity of western Europe regarding history, geo-graphy, political and societal attributes

The relevant functional needs include: – socio-economic adjustment to EU framework – geopolitical stabiliziation – political symbolism

Motives for cooperation inlcude: – Interests – Ideas:

Wallace/Wallace 2000, ch. 2

• economic doctrines • prevailing ideas about society, environment, and security

– Reactions to particular issues or events

Institutional arrangements include: (formal and informal) national and EU institutions including EP, Commission, Council, Court of Justice, other EU institutions

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

The context includes: – the inadequacy of the individual states – globalization – the specificity of western Europe regarding history, geo-graphy, political and societal attributes

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

The context includes: – the inadequacy of the individual states – globalization – the specificity of western Europe regarding history, geo-graphy, political and societal attributes

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

The relevant functional needs include: – socio-economic adjustment to EU framework – geopolitical stabiliziation – political symbolism

EU Arena

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

The relevant functional needs include: – socio-economic adjustment to EU framework – geopolitical stabiliziation – political symbolism

EU Arena

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

Motives for cooperation inlcude: – Interests – Ideas: economic doctrines and prevailing ideas about society, environment, and security – Reactions to particular issues or events

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

Motives for cooperation inlcude: – Interests – Ideas: economic doctrines and prevailing ideas about society, environment, and security – Reactions to particular issues or events

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

Motives for cooperation inlcude: – Interests – Ideas: economic doctrines and prevailing ideas about society, environment, and security – Reactions to particular issues or events

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

Government, national parliaments and courts

Commission, EP, ECJ, (Council)

((European) Council)

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

Government, national parliaments and courts

Commission, EP, ECJ, (Council)

((European) Council)

Policies and arenas …Which arena predominates in any given policy domain depends on the context, the functional needs, the motives of those involved, and the institutional arrangements.”

National Arena

EU Arena

Government, national parliaments and courts

Commission, EP, ECJ, (Council)

((European) Council)

How to classify policies? I. By modes II. By procedures III. By Treaty provisions IV. By Types of integration

Classification of policies (I): Modes -

Community method Regulation Multi-level governance (distribution) Policy coordination Intensive transgovernmentalism

Wallace/Wallace 2000: 71-72; Peterson 1995.

Classification of policies (I): Modes -

Traditional Community method EU regulatory mode EU distributional mode Policy coordination Intensive transgovernmentalism

Wallace/Wallace/Pollack 2005: chapter 3.

Classification of policies (I): Modes Traditional Community method Î

Strong role of European Commission, Empowering role for the Council, Locking-in of stakeholders, Engagement of national agencies, Distancing from the influence of elected representatives on national level, Occasional, but defining role of ECJ, Resourcing of the policy on a collective basis. example: agricultural policy Wallace/Wallace/Pollack 2005: chapter 3.

Classification of policies (I): Modes EU regulatory mode -

Commission as architect and defender of regulatory objectives and rules, - Council as form for agreeing minimal standards and direction of harmonization, - ECJ as the means of ensuring reasonable application of rules, - EP as one of several means for consideration of (often noneconomic) factors, - Extensive opportunities for stakeholders. Î Example: Internal market Wallace/Wallace/Pollack 2005: chapter 3.

The lecture of january 4, 2010, continues here...

Plan of lecture 19.10.

Introduction – European Studies and political science

14.12. Policy-making in Europe I

26.10.

Theorizing European integration 4.1. I

Policy-making in Europe II

2.11.

How to write a term paper in a German university

Between Paradise and Power: Europe in the World

9.11.

Theorizing European integration 18.1. II

European politics and democracy

16.11.

Theorizing European integration 25.1. III

Towards new paradigms? The end of integration and EU skepticism

23.11.

Guest speaker: Where are we with the Lisbon Treaty

Final exam

30.11.

The institutions of the European Union I

7.12.

The institutions of the European Union II

11.1.

1.2.

Structure of lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

How to classify policies? I. By modes II. By procedures III. By Treaty provisions IV. By Types of integration

Classification of policies (I): Modes -

Traditional Community method EU regulatory mode EU distributional mode Policy coordination Intensive transgovernmentalism

Wallace/Wallace/Pollack 2005: chapter 3.

Classification of policies (I): Modes EU distributional mode Î

Commission as deviser of programs, in partnership with local/regional authorities and stakeholders, Member governments in Council agree to budget with distributive elements, EP (often) supports actors that profit from distribution, Local and regional elites benefit from policy empowerment, Some scope for other stakeholders, Example (?): regional/cohesion policy Wallace/Wallace/Pollack 2005: chapter 3.

Classification of policies (I): Modes Policy coordination -

Commission as developer of networks of experts or epistemic communities, and of stakeholders and/or civil society, Involvement of independent experts, Convening of high-level groups in the Council, Dialogue with specialist committees in EP Î Example: employment policy/policies Wallace/Wallace/Pollack 2005: chapter 3.

Classification of policies (I): Modes Intensive transgovernmentalism Î

Active involvement of European Council in setting of overall direction, Predominance of Council in consolidating cooperation, Limited or marginal role of Commission, Exclusion of EP and ECJ, Involvement of distinct key of national policy-makers Special arrangement for managing cooperation, Opaqueness of process to national parliaments and public examples: development of EMU, CFSP Wallace/Wallace/Pollack 2005: chapter 3.

Classification of policies (II): Procedures (Art. 288 TFEU) Regulation

Directive

Decision

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.

Classification of policies (II): Procedures (Art. 289 TFEU) Ordinary legislative procedure (Art. 289 (1) TFEU) – shall consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission. Special legislative procedure (Art. 289 (2) TFEU) – the adoption of a regulation, directive or decision by the European Parliament with the participation of the Council, or by the latter with the participation of the European Parliament, shall constitute a special legislative procedure

Classification of policies (II): Procedures Who decides?

Council autonomously

Decision rule in the council Unanimity No unanimity (QMV) Efficiency-advanced Pure intergovernintergovernmental mental procedure procedure

Council with Commission involvement, EP without decision power

-

Bureaucracy procedure

Council with Commission involvement, EP with decision power

Constitutional Procedure

Community procedure

Beichelt 2009: chapter 3.

Classification of policies (III): Treaties Treaty of Lisbon Treaty on European Union Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TITLE I COMMON PROVISIONS TITLE II PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES TITLE III PROVISIONS ON THE INSTITUTIONS TITLE IV PROVISIONS ON ENHANCED COOPERATION TITLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY TITLE VI FINAL PROVISIONS

PART ONE PRINCIPLES PART TWO NON-DISCRIMINATION AND CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION PART THREE UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS PART FOUR ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES PART FIVE EXTERNAL ACTION BY THE UNION PART SIX INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS PART SEVEN GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Classification of policies (III): Treaties I. Exclusive Competence (Art. 3 TFEU) II. Shared Competence (Art. 4 TFEU) III. Coordination (Art. 5 TFEU) and Support, Coordination, supplementation (Art. 6 TFEU)

Classification of policies (III): Treaties Exclusive competence

Shared competences

Support, coordination, supplementation

Definition: Only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts.

Definition: The Union and the MS may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area.

Definition: Harmonisation of national policies

Variation: MS shall act only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts

Variation: The MS shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence.

Classification of policies (III): Treaties Exclusive Competence (Art. 3 TFEU) „When the Treaties confer on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of acts of the Union" (Art. 2 (1) TFEU)“

Classification of policies (III): Treaties Shared Competence (Art. 4 TFEU) „When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall exercise their competence again to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence.“ (Art.2(2) TFEU)

Classification of policies (III): Treaties Coordination of MS actions (Art. 5 TFEU) 1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies. Specific provisions shall apply to those Member States whose currency is the euro. 2. The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the Member States, in particular by defining guidelines for these policies. 3. The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States’ social policies.

Classification of policies (III): Treaties Competence to support, coordinate or supplement (Art.6 TFEU) "In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Treaties, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas. Legally binding acts of the Union adopted on the basis of the provisions in the Treaties relating to these areas shall not entail harmonisation of Member States’ laws or regulations.“

Classification of policies (III): Treaties Exclusive competence

Shared competences

Support, coordination, supplementation

(a) customs union (b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market (c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro (d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy (e) common commercial policy

(a) internal market (b) social policy (c) economic, social and territorial cohesion (d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources (e) environment (f) consumer protection (g) transport (h) trans-European networks (i) energy (j) area of freedom, security and justice (k) common safety concerns in public health matters (l) research, technological development and space

(a) protection and improvement of human health (b) industry (c) culture (d) tourism (e) education, vocational training, youth and sport (f) civil protection (g) administrative cooperation

Classification of policies (III): Treaties

Source: SWP (2009): Der Vertrag von Lissabon (www.swp-berlin.org).

Classification of policies (IV): types of integration - Negative integration: market creation - Positive integration: build-up of political institutions to control market effects

Structure of Lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary (and economic) Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

How to classify the respective policy? Monetary policy Intensive transgovernmentalism By procedure Special procedure: ECB + Ecofin By treaty Exclusive competence

Economic policy

By mode

Coordination

By type of integration

Lisbon process, OMC Coordination + shared Negative integration

Positive integration (Bundesbank model)

How to classify the respective policy? Monetary policy Intensive transgovernmentalism By procedure Special procedure: ECB + Ecofin By treaty Exclusive competence

Economic policy

By mode

Coordination

By type of integration

Lisbon process, OMC Coordination + shared Negative integration

Positive integration (Bundesbank model)

How to classify the respective policy? Monetary policy Intensive transgovernmentalism By procedure Special procedure: ECB + Ecofin By treaty Exclusive competence

Economic policy

By mode

Coordination

By type of integration

Lisbon process, OMC Coordination + shared Negative integration

Positive integration (Bundesbank model)

From Customs Union to Monetary Union Stage

Features

In EC/EU history

Free Trade Area

No visible trade restrictions between members Free trade area plus common external trade regime Customs union plus free movement of goods (no invisible trade restrictions) Internal Commodity Market plus free movement of services, capital, and labour Common Market plus a common currency Monetary plus a common economic policy

Accomplished in 1968

Customs Union Internal Commodity Market Common Market

Monetary Union Economic Union

Accomplished in 1968 Struggling in the 1970s and 1980s Suggested by White Paper 1985; completed 1992 (third step of EU) Not visible at the moment

Monetary Union The eurozone Eurozone

Non-EU members

Obliged to join

Not obliged to join

1999

2001

Montenegro

Bulgaria

Denmark

Austria

Greece

Kosovo

Czech Rep.

UK

San Marino

Estonia

Belgium Finland

2007

Vatican City

Hungary

France

Slovenia

Monaco

Lithuania

Germany

Latvia

Ireland

2008

Italy

Cyprus

Poland

Luxembourg

Slovakia

Romania

Netherlands

Malta

Sweden

Portugal Spain

Monetary Policy Instruments by ECB • Monopoly supply of monetary base – currency (banknotes and coins) in circulation – reserves held by counterparties with the Eurosystem – recourse by credit institutions to the Eurosystem’s deposit facility

• Monetary policy stance – Increase or decrease of interest rates

The Eurozone – Inflation

Source: ECB, 2009

The Euro against the Dollar

Euro zone – real economy GDP real Growth Rate (2008 est.)

Unemployment (2008 est.)

Austria

1.8%

3.8%

Finland

0.9%

France

Member State

Convergence Criteria for Economic and Monetary Union Public Dept (% of GDP, 2008)

Budgetary Deficit (2008)

Long term interest rate (Sept 2009)*

3.2%

62.5

-0.4

3.49

6.4%

4.1%

33.4

4.2

3.62

0.3%

7.4%

2.8%

68.0

-3.4

3.59

Germany

1.0%

7.8%

2.7%

65.9

-0.1

3.26

Greece

2.9%

7.7%

4.1%

97.6

-5.0

4.56

Ireland

-3.0%

6.1%

4.1%

43.2

-7.1

4.91

Italy

-1.0%

6.8%

3.4%

105.8

-2.7

4.09

Luxembourg

-0.9%

4.5%

3.4%

14.7

2.6

3.94

Netherlands

2.0%

4.0%

2.5%

58.2

1.0

3.58

-0.1%

7.6%

2.6%

66.4

-2.6

3.93

Spain

1.2%

13.9%

4.1%

39.5

-3.8

3.81

Ø Euro-Zone

0.5%

6.9%

3.5%

62.1

-1.5

3.88

Inflation (2008 est.)

Euro-Countries

Portugal

Levels of unemployment in EU Absolute Numbers (in thousands) In percentages 21.840 9,1 14.919,1 9,5 235,6 5,5 392,4 8,2 2723 9,5 3.317,8 7,7 256,6 11,7 296,6 3,4 4.139,6 17,9 69,1 6,7 334,7 12,3 131,8 4,5 2.450,1 7,8 416,0 8,5 94,5 13,6 442,8 10,5 1.442,5 8,4

European Commission, Ameco Online, 2009

Country EU 27 Euro area (16 countries) Austria Belgium France Germany Ireland Netherlands Spain Slovenia Slovakia Denmark United Kingdom Sweden Estonia Hungary Poland

How to classify the respective policy? Monetary policy Intensive transgovernmentalism By procedure Special procedure: ECB + Ecofin By treaty Exclusive competence

Economic policy

By mode

Coordination

By type of integration

Lisbon process, OMC Coordination + shared Negative integration

Positive integration (Bundesbank model)

The lecture of january 11, 2010, continues here...

Plan of lecture 19.10.

Introduction – European Studies and political science

14.12. Policy-making in Europe I

26.10.

Theorizing European integration 4.1. I

Policy-making in Europe II

2.11.

How to write a term paper in a German university

Policy-making in Europe III

9.11.

Theorizing European integration 18.1. II

European politics and democracy

16.11.

Theorizing European integration 25.1. III

Towards new paradigms? The end of integration and EU skepticism

23.11.

Guest speaker: Where are we with the Lisbon Treaty

Final exam

30.11.

The institutions of the European Union I

7.12.

The institutions of the European Union II

11.1.

1.2.

Monetary Union The eurozone Eurozone

Non-EU members

Obliged to join

Not obliged to join

1999

2001

Montenegro

Bulgaria

Denmark

Austria

Greece

Kosovo

Czech Rep.

UK

San Marino

Estonia

Belgium Finland

2007

Vatican City

Hungary

France

Slovenia

Monaco

Lithuania

Germany

Latvia

Ireland

2008

Italy

Cyprus

Poland

Luxembourg

Slovakia

Romania

Netherlands

Malta

Sweden

Portugal Spain

Structure of Lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary (and economic) Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

Cohesion Policy Instruments Name of Fund “Traditional” Structural Policy

Cohesion Policy (since SEA, 1986/87)

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) European Social Fund (ESF)

Since 1975 1960

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Cohesion Fund

1962 1992

Financial Instrument for Fisheries (FIFG)

1993

Cohesion Policy Objectives until 1999 Objective number

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5a) (5b)

(6)

Source: Hix 1999: 257-258.

Objective description

Promoting development and structural adjustment in regions lagging behind (GDP/head below 75% of EU average Aiding the conversion of regions in industrial decline (mainly industrial employment and higher unemployment than EU average) Combating long-term unemployment and higher unemployment that EU average Facilitating the adaptation of workers to industrial change Promoting rural development Aiding structural adjustment of agricultural and fisheries sectors Structural adjustment in rural areas (mainly agricultral employment and lower agricultural incomes than EU average or depopulation trend) Promoting development and structural adjustment of regions with low population density (less than 8 inhabitants per square kilometre)

Fund(s) involved

ERDF, ESF, EAGGF ERDF, ESF ESF ESF EAGGF, FIFG ESF, EAGGF

ERDF, ESF, EAGGF

Cohesion Policy Objectives 2000-2006 Objective Objective description number 1 Development of Regions where the GDP per capita is less than 75% of the EU average; additionally development of sparsely populated areas Formerly: objectives 1 and 6 2

Developments of regions facing major change in the industrial, services, and fisheries sectors, rural areas in serious decline and disadvantaged urban areas Formerly: objectives 2, 3, 4, and 5

3

Development of regions not covered by objectives 1 and 2; specifically aimed at encouraging the modernization of systems of education, training, and employment

Cohesion Policy Objectives 2007-2013 (1) Convergence objective (2) Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective (3) European Territorial Co-operation Objective

Objective aim Promotion of growth-enhancing conditions and factors leading to real convergence for the least-developed and regions. Strengthening competitiveness and attractiveness, as well as employment

Strengthening cross-border co-operation through joint local and regional initiatives, trans-national co-operation aiming at integrated territorial development, and interregional co-operation and exchange of experience.

Cohesion Policy Objectives 2007-2013 Objective description (1)

Aim: promote growth-enhancing conditions and factors leading to real convergence for the leastdeveloped and regions.

Convergence objective

•

17 Member States – 84 regions with a total population of 154 million, per capita GDP at less than 75 % of the Community average,

•

“phasing-out” basis – another 16 regions with a total of 16.4 million inhabitants and a GDP only slightly above the threshold

•

(2) Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective (3) European Territorial Co-operation Objective

amount available under the Convergence objective is EUR 282.8 billion, representing 81.5 % of the total. Aim: strengthening competitiveness and attractiveness, as well as employment •

EU-27, a total of 168 regions will be eligible, representing 314 million inhabitants.

•

Within these, 13 regions which are home to a total of 19 million inhabitants represent so-called “phasing-in” areas and are subject to special financial allocations due to their former status as “Objective 1” regions.

•

The amount of EUR 55 billion – of which EUR 11.4 billion is for the “phasing-in” regions – represents just below 16% of the total allocation. Regions in 19 Member States are concerned with this objective.

Aim: strengthen cross-border co-operation through joint local and regional initiatives, transnational co-operation aiming at integrated territorial development, and interregional cooperation and exchange of experience. •

population living in cross-border areas amounts to 181.7 million (37.5 % of the total EU population)

•

EUR 8.7 billion (2.5 % of the total) available for this objective is split as follows: EUR billion for cross-border, EUR 1.83 billion for transnational and EUR 445 million for inter-regional cooperation.

Cohesion Policy Resources per objective 2007 – 2013 / 347 billion Euro in total

Source: European Commission, Regional Policy, 2009

Cohesion Policy: Crossborder Cooperation Regions

Source: European Commission, Regional Policy, 2009

Cohesion Policy Instruments and objectives Objectives

Structural Funds and Instruments

Convergence

ERDF

ESF

Regional Competitiveness and Employment

ERDF

ESF

European Territorial Co- ERDF operation

Cohesion Fund

Cohesion Policy Convergence objective Regions at level 2 of the NUTS classification whose GDP per inhabitant is less than 75% of the Community average are eligible for funding under the Convergence objective. For example… – Bulgaria: the whole territory – Czech Republic: Střední Čechy, Jihozápad, Severozápad, Severovýchod, Jihovýchod, Střední Morava, Moravskoslezsko – Germany: Brandenburg-Nordost, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Chemnitz, Dresden, Dessau, Magdeburg, Thüringen – Estonia: the whole territory – Greece: Anatoliki Makedonia, Thraki, Thessalia, Ipeiros, Ionia Nisia, Dytiki Ellada, Peloponnisos, Voreio Aigaio, Kriti – Spain: Andalucía, Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, Galicia – France: Guadeloupe, Guyane, Martinique, Réunion – Hungary: Közép-Dunántúl, Nyugat-Dunántúl, Dél-Dunántúl, ÉszakMagyarország, Észak-Alföld, Dél-Alföld

Cohesion Policy Cohesion fund MS whose GNI is lower than 90% of the EU average can benefit from cohesion fund currently the following countries: -

Bulgaria Czech Republic Estonia Greece Cyprus Latvia Lithuania

-

Hungary Malta Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia

-

Spain (for a transition period)

Cohesion Policy Instruments and objectives Objectives

Structural Funds and Instruments

Convergence

ERDF

ESF

Regional Competitiveness and Employment

ERDF

ESF

European Territorial Co- ERDF operation

Cohesion Fund

Cohesion Policy Resources received

Source: European Commission, Regional Policy, 2009

Source: European Commission, Regional Policy, 2009

Cohesion Policy Resources received per objective

Cohesion Policy – positions of Member states

Source: European Commisison (2007): Wachsende Regionen, wachsendes Europa. Vierter Zwischenbericht über den wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Zusammenhalt: 174.

Cohesion Policy – Budget Balance of payment to the EU 2004

2006

2007

2008

Mill. EUR

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

-536.1

-0.18 %

-607.5

-0.20 %

-709.9

-0.22 %

-868.2

-0.26 %

-720.6

-0.21 %

+335.1

+1.17 %

+669.6

+1.99 %

Bulgaria Czech Republic

+272.2

+0.33 %

+178.0

+0.19 %

+386.2

+0.36 %

+656.7

+0.55 %

+1 178.0

+0.85 %

Denmark

-224.6

-0.11 %

-265.3

-0.13 %

-505.2

-0.23 %

-604.4

-0.27 %

-543.2

-0.23 %

Germany

-7 140.4

-0.32 %

-6 064.3

-0.27 %

-6 325.2

-0.27 %

-7 415.2

-0.30 %

-8 774.3

-0.35 %

+145.0

+1.58 %

+154.3

+1.45 %

+176.4

+1.42 %

+226.2

+1.61 %

+227.4

+1.52 %

Ireland

+1 593.8

+1.25 %

+1 136.6

+0.82 %

+1 080.5

+0.70 %

+662.1

+0.41 %

+566.1

+0.36 %

Greece

+4 163.3

+2.26 %

+3 900.5

+2.00 %

+5 102.3

+2.44 %

+5 437.2

+2.45 %

+6 279.7

+2.68 %

Spain

+8 502.3

+1.02 %

+6 017.8

+0.67 %

+3 811.7

+0.39 %

+3 651.8

+0.36 %

+2 813.2

+0.26 %

France

-3 050.7

-0.18 %

-2 883.5

-0.17 %

-3 012.5

-0.17 %

-2 997.3

-0.16 %

-3 842.7

-0.20 %

Italy

-2 946.9

-0.21 %

-2 199.0

-0.15 %

-1 731.8

-0.12 %

-2 013.5

-0.13 %

-4 101.4

-0.26 %

Cyprus

+63.5

+0.52 %

+90.3

+0.69 %

+102.4

+0.73 %

-10.5

-0.07 %

-17.7

-0.11 %

Latvia

+197.7

+1.81 %

+263.9

+2.05 %

+255.5

+1.64 %

+488.8

+2.39 %

+407.0

+1.80 %

Estonia

Source: European Commission, Regional Policy, 2009

Belgium

2005

Cohesion Policy – Budget Balance of payment to the EU 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

Mill. EUR

% GNI

+369.3

+2.08 %

+476.4

+2.32 %

+585.3

+2.50 %

+793.2

+2.90 %

+842.6

+2.69 %

-93.6

-0.39 %

-86.8

-0.33 %

-60.2

-0.23 %

-139.8

-0.46 %

-22.1

-0.08 %

+193.4

+0.25 %

+590.1

+0.70 %

+1 115.0

+1.32 %

+1 605.9

+1.70 %

+1 111.7

+1.15 %

+45.0

+1.01 %

+90.0

+1.97 %

+101.0

+2.07 %

+28.1

+0.53 %

+30.0

+0.55 %

-2 034.9

-0.40 %

-2 636.6

-0.51 %

-2 587.6

-0.46 %

-2 864.3

-0.49 %

-2 678.2

-0.45 %

Austria

-365.1

-0.16 %

-277.9

-0.11 %

-301.5

-0.12 %

-563.2

-0.21 %

-356.4

-0.13 %

Poland

+1 438.3

+0.72 %

+1 853.2

+0.77 %

+2 997.6

+1.13 %

+5 136.4

+1.72 %

+4 441.7

+1.27 %

Portugal

+3 124.0

+2.20 %

+2 378.0

+1.63 %

+2 291.7

+1.53 %

+2 474.4

+1.58 %

+2 695.1

+1.69 %

+595.8

+0.50 %

+1 581.0

+1.20 %

Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands

Romania Slovenia

+109.7

+0.41 %

+101.5

+0.36 %

+142.8

+0.47 %

+88.6

+0.26 %

+113.8

+0.31 %

Slovak Republic

+169.2

+0.52 %

+270.9

+0.72 %

+323.2

+0.74 %

+617.8

+1.16 %

+725.6

+1.15 %

Finland

-69.6

-0.05 %

-84.8

-0.05 %

-241.0

-0.14 %

-171.6

-0.10 %

-318.5

-0.17 %

Sweden

-1 059.8

-0.37 %

-866.9

-0.29 %

-856.6

-0.27 %

-994.8

-0.29 %

-1 463.1

-0.44 %

United Kingdom

-2 864.9

-0.16 %

-1 529.0

-0.08 %

-2 140.2

-0.11 %

-4 155.3

-0.20 %

-844.3

-0.05 %

Source: European Commission, Regional Policy, 2009

Mill. EUR

Major findings (of last two tables) - All new member states (of 2004 and 2007 enlargements) are net recipients - Netherlands and Sweden as strongest net givers - Greece, Portugal continue to be relatively strong net recipients - Ireland, Spain as relative losers of recent years - United Kingdom: rebate

How to classify the respective policy? Cohesion policy

Agricultural policy

By mode

Redistributive

Redistributive

By procedure By treaty

Community Procedure (and intergovernmental) Shared competence

Bureaucratic

Shared competence By type of Elements of positive and Elements of posiintegration negative integration tive and negative integration

Structure of Lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary (and economic) Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

Common Agricutural Policy (CAP) Objectives – Art. 39 TFEU (a) Increase agricultural productivity (technical progress, rational development, optimum utilization of production factors) (b) Ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community (increase individual earnings) (c) Stabilize markets (d) Ensure availability of supply (e) Ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices

CAP I Mechanisms to protect the price of agricultural goods (negotiated 1962)

Mechanism

Means

Funds involved

Protection against low internal prices

Buying surplus goods from farmers when goods fall below an agreed guarantee price

EAGF*

Protection against low import prices

Import quotas and levies in imported agricultural goods when world market prices fall below an agreed price

EAGF*

Subsidies to achieve a low Refunds for the export of agriculture goods export price when world market prices fall below an agreed price * EAGF: European Agricultural Guarantee Fund

EAGF*

CAP II – MacSharry reform (1992) Price cuts in certain sectors Direct income support for farmers

Guarantee prices were reduced

Set-aside scheme

Farmers in certain sectors and in specific regions are paid to leave their land fallow ('set-aside') instead of growing crops

Accompanying measures

New aid programs: promote rural development, environmentally-friendly agridculture, replacement with forest, early retirement

Direct payments to farmers to compensate for price reductions

CAP III – Agenda 2000 1st Pillar Production support The market support prices for cereals, milk and milk products and beef and veal were step-wise reduced while direct coupled payments to farmers were increased.

Source: Nugent, 2006

2nd Pillar Rural development Several rural development measures were introduced (such as diversification). Agri-environment schemes became compulsory for every Member State.

CAP IV – Summary of reforms since 1990s − Guarantee prices: Removed or reduced to much lower levels (safety net levels) − Income support payments: Extent of decoupling (payments for production output) varies by commodity − New policy concerns: Consumer protection, rural development and agri-enviromental schemes compulsory for all MS Source: Nugent, 2006

CAP and the Budget

Source: European Commission, 2009

CAP and Budget

Source: European Commission, 2009

CAP and Frankfurt (Oder) Received subsidies

EGFL= EAGF = European Agricultural Guarantee Fond ELER= EAFRD = European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

How to classify the respective policy? Cohesion policy

Agricultural policy

By mode

Redistributive

Redistributive

By procedure By treaty

Community Procedure (and intergovernmental) Shared competence

Bureaucratic

By type of integration

Shared competence Elements of positive and Elements of posinegative integration tive and negative integration

Structure of Lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary (and economic) Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

EU Foreign Policy in global perspective Three Level Chess game – highest board: classical interstate military issues (recently Afghanistan, Iraq) – middle board: interstate economic issues – bottom board: transnational issues – resource oriented, network building, search for legitimacy Nye, Joseph S., 2003: U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq. In: Foreign Affairs, vol. 82, no. 4, S. 60-73.

EU Foreign Policy in global perspective Three Level Chess game – highest board: classical interstate military issues (recently Afghanistan, Iraq) – middle board: interstate economic issues – bottom board: transnational issues – resource oriented, network building, search for legitimacy Nye, Joseph S., 2003: U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq. In: Foreign Affairs, vol. 82, no. 4, S. 60-73.

Î Judgement on strength/weakness of EU in foreign policy depends on focus Î (Self-)image of actors may jump between levels

EU Foreign Policy – theoretic approaches -

Neo-realism: Focuses on sovereign states as main actors of international politics; states act as interest oriented actors. Main interests: (external) security and power. - (Utilitarian) Liberalism: foreign policy of a state does not depend on international system, but is based on most powerful domestic interests of a country - Constructivism: foreign policy behaviour of a state is based on societal norms within this state and on international norms. Î Validity of approaches depends on board level (Nye) in focus

Contradicting positions – Kagan versus… Rifkin -

Imbalance of power between Europe and the US -

-

US have taken responsibility for world peace in many cases, they have become the target of attacks US is only power capable of acting unilaterally on the international scene

Europe’s moral position – – –

It has been trying to implement a integrationist, anti-Hobbes, model It is not capable of protecting that model itself neither in Europe nor in the world, but public and elite opinion implies something else "non-realist“ but idealist vision of internal and external foreign policy

Î European weakness because of reluctance to acknowledge realist elements of foreign policy Kagan, Robert, 2003: Of paradise and power. America and Europe in the New World Order

Contradicting positions – Kagan versus …Rifkin USA

− − − − − − − − − −

Unlimited growth Personal freedom Independence Strong working ethics Religious heritage, importance of civil religion Logic of assimilation Patriotism Preference for military conflict solving Local loyalties Individual pursuit of happiness

Europe

− − − − − − − − − −

Rifkin, Jeremy, 2004: The European Dream

sustainable development living quality interdependence leisure time secular logic of integration by upholding identities cosmopolitan reluctance when using military power, favoring diplomacy, economic aid, Petersburg tasks local, regional and global loyalties welfare of local and global communities

Now…

...Towards CFSP as one of many European Union policies

CFSP – why integrate? Maastricht

Lisbon

End of Cold War and collapse Global security of the SU – Terrorism (asymmetric warfare) Shift from the global East-West dimension to regional issues and conflicts

German unification Gulf War 1990/91 EU Member States uncoordinated

Break-up of Yugoslavia No consistent EU response

Sources: Nugent 2006, Wessels 2007

– Organized crime – Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – Climate change – Regional conflicts – Failed states

European Neighborhood – (Potential) Instability – Energy security – Immigration and Asylum

CFSP – evolution I Year

Event

Countries Involved

Substance

1948

Treaty

B, F, GB, LUX, NL

Defence treaty with guarantee to mutual defence

1949

Treaty (NATO)

B, CAN, F, LUX, NL, UK, USA

Defence treaty with soft commitment to mutual defence

1950-54 European Defence B, D, F, I, LUX, Community (EDC) NL, UK 1961-62 Fouchet Plan

EEC Countries

(Failed) defence treaty on European level

(Failed) plan to include incorporate defence and security policy into EEC 1970-91 European Political EC-6 / EC-12 Permanent consultation of EC Cooperation (EPC) Countries governments in foreign and security affairs 1986 EC-12 Countries Inclusion of EPC into European Single European Act (SEA) Treaties

CFSP – evolution II Year

Event

Countries Involved

Substance

1992

Treaty on the European Union (TEU) Treaty of Amsterdam

EU-12 Countries

Introduces CFSP as second pillar of EU

1997 2000 2004 2009

EU-15 Countries

Institutional strengthening of CFSP; inclusion of Petersberg tasks Treaty of Nice EU-15 Countries Further institutional strengthening; exclusion of West European Union EU Draft EU-15 + 13 Foreign Minister and European Constitution applicant countries Defence Cooperation (EDC) Lisbon Treaty EU-27 High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy and EDC

Division of competencies Policies – CFSP [...] The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy (Art. 2 TFEU)

CFSP and Lisbon Principles Art. 21 (1) TEU The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles [...] democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law

CFSP and Lisbon Aims Art. 21 (2) TEU – [...] safeguard its [the EU’s] values, fundamental interests, security, independence and integrity; – consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law; – preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris, including those relating to external borders; [...]

CFSP and Lisbon Competencies Art. 24 TEU The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence

CFSP and Lisbon Instruments Art. 25 TEU (a) defining the general guidelines (European Council);* (b) adopting decisions defining (Council):* – (i) actions to be undertaken by the Union; – (ii) positions to be taken by the Union; – (iii) arrangements for the implementation of the decisions referred to in points (i) and (ii);

(c) strengthening systematic cooperation between Member States in the conduct of policy. * Art 26 TEU

CFSP and Lisbon Actors • European Council (Art. 26 TEU) – shall identify the Union's strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications.

• Council of the European Union (Art. 26 TEU) – shall frame the common foreign and security policy and take the decisions necessary for defining and implementing

CFSP and Lisbon Actors • High Representative (Art. 18 (2) TEU) – The High Representative shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. He shall contribute by his proposals to the development of that policy, which he shall carry out as mandated by the Council. The same shall apply to the common security and defence policy

• European Parliament (Art. 36 (2) TEU) – may ask questions of the Council or make recommendations to it and to the High Representative.

CFSP Decision-making Art. 31 TEU Decisions [...] shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded

CFSP In practise

Source: Council of the EU, 2009

CFSP– Summary I Instruments

Institutional Changes

Single European Act (1986) Art. 30 SEA

• •

•

•

Consult and inform each other (MS) Take full account of positions of the partners Joint Actions

• •

General Council, meets at least four times per year Political Committee EPC-Secretariat

Maastricht (1991), Art. J-J11 TEU

• • •

Cooperation Common positions Joint actions

• • •

Troika system Co-right of initiative for Commission Consultation of EP

Amsterdam (1997), Art. 11-28 TEU

•

• •

Mister CFSP Declaration of a policy planning and early warning system unit Reform of the Troika system (Presidency + Mister CFSP + Commissioner of External Relations) „Constructive abstention" (Art. 23) Extraordinary Council meeting on the request of the Commission or a MS (Art. 22) Inclusion of the WEU QMV possible if Council decides so by unanimity International negotiations lead by Presidency

¾

¾

¾

¾

¾

• • •

Art. 12 TEU: Objectives and general guidelines Common Strategies Common positions Joint Actions Strengthening systematic cooperation between MS Progressive framing of a common defence policy Inclusion of the „Petersberg Tasks“ International agreements (with states and/or organisations)

• • • • • •

CFSP – Summary II Nice (2000), Art. 11-28 EUV

Instruments

Institutional Changes

No major changes

• • • • •

Lisbon (2007), Art. 21-46

Art. 21 TEU • General guidelines • Adopting decisions defining (i) actions to be undertaken by the Union; (ii) positions to be taken by the Union; (iii) arrangements for the implementation of the decisions referred to in points (i) and (ii); • strengthening systematic cooperation between MS

• • • • • •

Enhanced cooperation (Art. 27a-e) Exclusion of the WEU from the TEU Polical and Security Committee (Art. 25) Strengething of the Presidency on international negotiations (Art. 24) Small increase of decisions taken by OMV ‘Double Hat‘ Vice President of the Commission and ‘High Representative‘ Extension of QMV EP may publish recommendations and pose questions to the Council and the High Representative European External Action Service (Art. 27 (3)) European Defence Agency (Art. 42 (6)) Solidarity clause (Art. 42 (7))

GASP – Synopse I Instrumente

Institutionelle Neuerungen

Einheitliche Europäische Akte (1986)

• •

•

•

Unterrichtung, Konsultation Abstimmung und Angleichung von Standpunkten Gemeinsame Aktionen

• •

Tagungen des Allgemeinen Rats, mind. 4x jährlich Politisches Komitee EPZ-Sekretariat

Maastricht (1991), Art. J-J11 EUV

• • •

Regelmäßige Zusammenarbeit Gemeinsame Standpunkte Gemeinsame Aktionen

• • •

Troika (Vorsitz + vor- + nachheriger Vorsitz) Volle Beteiligung der Kommission Anhörung des EP

Amsterdam (1997), Art. 11-28 EUV

•

• •

Hoher Vertreter ("Mister GASP") Planungs- und Frühwarnungseinheit (Erklärung 6 zum Amst. Vertrag) Reform der Troika (Vorsitz + Mister GASP + Außenkommissar) "Konstruktive Enthaltung" (Art. 23) Vorschlagsrecht der Kommission (Art. 22) Einbeziehung der WEU Ansätze von QMV in der Umsetzung von Gemeinsamen Strategien Verhandlungsführung des Ratsvorsitzes bei internationalen Verträgen

¾

¾

¾

¾

¾

• • •

Art. 12 EUV: Grundsätze und allgemeine Leitlinien Gemeinsame Strategien Gemeinsame Aktionen Gemeinsame Standpunkte Ausbau der regelmäßigen Zusammenarbeit Schrittweise Festlegung einer gemeinsamen Verteidigungspolitik (Art. 17(1)) Einbeziehung der "PetersbergAufgaben" (Art. 17(2)) Abschluss von Übereinkünften mit anderen Staaten (Art. 24)

• • • • • •

GASP – Synopse II Nizza (2000), Art. 11-28 EUV

Instrumente

Institutionelle Neuerungen

• •

• •

i.W. wie Amsterdam Benennung von Sonderbeauftragten (Art. 23)

• • •

Verfassung (2004), Art. III-195 bis III215 VfE

Art. III-195-3 VfE: • Allgemeine Leitlinien • Europäische Beschlüsse über: - Aktionen der Union - Standpunkte der Union - Umsetzung der Aktionen und Standpunkte • Ausbau der systematischen Zusammenarbeit der Mitgliedsstaaten

• • • • • •

Verstärkte Zusammenarbeit (Art. 27a-e) Wiederausklammerung der WEU aus dem EUV Politisches und Sicherheitspolitisches Komitee (Art. 25) Weitere Stärkung der Präsidentschaft bei der Aushandlung internationaler Verträge (Art. 24) Leichte Ausweitung von QMV-Entscheidungen bei der Umsetzung Außenminister der Union, gleichzeitig Vizepräsident der Kommission (Art. III-197 VfE) Europäischer Auswärtiger Dienst (III-197) Ausweitung QMV (III-201) Europäisches Rüstungsamt (III-212) "Strukturierte Zusammenarbeit" in der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (III-213) Finanzbestimmungen der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (III-215)

How to classify the respective policy? CFSP By mode

JHA

Intensive Regulatory transgovernmentalism By procedure Intergovernmental Community procedure By treaty Special section in Shared TEU-Lis competence

Structure of Lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary (and economic) Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ)

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

Justice and Home Affairs Evolution I Year Event

Countries Substance Involved

1957

Treaty of

EEC

1972

Pompidou Group

1975

1985 1989

EC-6 + neighboring countries Trevi and EC-9 + Working Groups neighboring countries

Schengen I Agreement Palma Document

Abolition of obstacles to the free movements of goods, persons, services, and capital (Art. 3c) Coordination of combat of drug-related crimes

Coordination of anti-terrorist efforts Later: WGs related to police tactics, serious international crime, issues of cross-border public order, organized crime, Immigration, Judicial Cooperation B, D, F, LUX, Plan to abolish border controls between NL the countries involved EC-12 Program of 'compensatory measures' to maintain internal security within the completed single market

Justice and Home Affairs Evolution II Year

Event

1990

Schengen II Agreement

1991

Maastricht Treaty EU-12

Broadening of Schengen I by asylum applications and other migration issues (start: 1995) Inclusion of Third Pillar into the EU

1994

Establishment of EU-12 Europol in

Collection and analysis of criminal intelligence on a transnational basis

1997

Treaty of Amsterdam Treaty of Nice

Transfer of some policies from the third to the first pillar Transfer of some more policies from the third to the first pillar

2000

Countries Involved B, D, F, LUX, NL

EU-15 EU-15

2003/ EU Constitution, EU 25/27 07 Lisbon Treaty

Substance

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) as integral part of TFEU

AFSJ and Lisbon Aims Art. 67 TFEU (1) The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States (2) It shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between Member States.

AFSJ and Lisbon Aims Art. 67 TFEU (3) The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws. (4) The Union shall facilitate access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extrajudicial decisions in civil matters.

AFSJ and Lisbon Competencies − Policies on Border checks, asylum and immigration (Art. 77-80 TFEU) − Judicial cooperation in Civil matters and criminal matters (Art.81-86 TFEU) − Police Cooperation (Art.87-89 TFEU)

AFSJ and Lisbon Actors Art. 68 TFEU • The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice • Commission, EP and Council as part of the ordinary legislation procedure

AFSJ and Lisbon Decision-making TFEU • the EP and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure – Policies on border checks, asylum and immigration (Art. 77 (2))

– Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters (Art.81 (2); 82 (1) TFEU) – Police cooperation (Art.87 (2) TFEU)

AFSJ – Summary I Prior EU

• • • • •

TEU

•

Third pillar: of the Maastricht Treaty: Justice and Home Affairs (Title VI TEU) – intergovernmental

Treaty of Amsterdam

First Pillar (EC)

Content • •

Institutions

Foundation of Interpol (1946) Council of Europe: agreement on judicial assistance and extradition, Pompidou-Group (since1971) TREVI-Cooperation (since 1975) Schengen I (1985): gradual abolishment of border controls in the single market Schengen II (1990): harmonisation in the areas of European external border control and Asylum, Visa and Immigration Policy

• • • •

Third Pillar (TEU)

Asylum-, Visa and Immigration Policies (Art. 61-69); partly inclusion of Schengen and Dublin agreements Judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art. 61, 65, 67)

•

Commission: right of initiative (Art. 67) After consulting the EP the Council can decide by unanimity to decide by QMV and to use the co-decision procedure (Art. 67) Visa policy: QMV + co-decision procedure (Art. 67) ECJ right for preliminary ruling (Art. 68, 234)

• •

•

• • •

Judicial cooperation in Criminal matters (Art. 29-42); strengthen Europol (Art. 30) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Art. 20, 30) Decisions taken by unanimity (Art. 34) Enhanced cooperation can be decided upon with QMV (Art. 40) Co-initiative right for Commission (Art. 34) ECJ right for preliminary ruling (Art. 35) Consultation procedure with EP (Art. 39)

AFSJ – Summary II Instruments

Institutional Changes

Treaty of Nice

•

Protocol attached to Art. 67: in • some areas of Immigration and Visa Policy the Council may decide by • unanimity to use QMV and Art. 251 EC

Foundation of Eurojust (Art. 31) Further opportunities for enhanced cooperation (Art. 40, 43-45); ECJ strengethend (Art. 40)

Treaty of Lisbon, Art. 67-89, 276 TFEU

•

ordinary legislative procedure (in some areas emergency breaks prevail)

•

Common judicial framework for AFSJ Strengthening of enhanced cooperation Commission and ECJ fully integrated (transition period) Extension of opt-outs for UK, Ireland and Denmark

• • •

Source: Maurer, 2009

RFSR – Synopse Vor der EU

• • • • •

Gründung von Interpol (1946) Europarat: Abkommen im Bereich der Rechtshilfe und Auslieferungsregelungen; Pompidou-Gruppe (seit 1971) TREVI-Kooperation (seit 1975) Schengen I (1985): Schrittweiser Abbau der Grenzkontrollen an den Binnengrenzen Schengen II (1990): Harmonisierung in den Bereichen Außengrenzkontrollen sowie Asyl-, Visa- und Ausländerrecht

Vertrag von Maastricht

•

Dritte – intergouvernementale – Säule des Maastrichter Vertrags: Justiz- und Innenpolitik (Titel VI EUV)

Vertrag von Amsterdam

Grundsätzlich

Erste Säule (EGV) • •

Institutionen*

• •

• •

Vertrag von Nizza

•

Dritte Säule (EUV)

Asyl-, Visa- und Einwanderungspolitik (Art. 61-69); dabei teilweise Einbeziehung der Regelungen der Abkommen von Schengen und Dublin Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Zivilsachen (Art. 61, 65, 67)

•

Kommission bekommt alleiniges Initiativrecht (Art. 67) Rat kann nach Anhörung des Europäischen Parlaments einstimmig beschließen, mit qualifizierter Mehrheit abzustimmen und das Mitentscheidungsverfahren anzuwenden (Art. 67) Automatischer Übergang zum QMV + Art. 251 EGV im Bereich der Visapolitik (Art. 67) Recht des EuGH zur Vorabentscheidung (Art. 68, 234)

•

Protokoll zu Art. 67: einige Bereiche der Visa- und Einwanderungspolitik werden unter Frist- oder Einstimmigkeitsvorbehalt dem Verfahren QMV + Art. 251 EGV zugeordnet

• •

•

• • • •

Zusammenarbeit von Polizei- und Zollbehörden, Drogenbekämpfung (Art. 2942); dabei Stärkung von Europol (Art. 30) Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen (Art. 20, 30) Beschlüsse werden einstimmig gefasst (Art. 34) Verstärkte Zusammenarbeit kann mit qualifiziertem Mehrheitsentscheid beschlossen werden (Art. 40) Ko-Initiativrecht der Kommission (Art. 34) Recht des EuGH zur Vorabentscheidung (Art. 35) Anhörungsrecht des Parlaments (Art. 39) Einführung von Eurojust (Art. 31) Weitere Möglichkeiten der verstärkten Zusammenarbeit (Art. 40, 43-45); EuGH wird zuständig (Art. 40)

How to classify the respective policy? CFSP By mode

JHA

Intensive Regulatory transgovernmentalism By procedure Intergovernmental Community procedure By treaty Special section in Shared TEU-Lis competence

Structure of Lecture I. Policies and Policy Analysis II. Policy-Making in the EU – general considerations III. Selected Policies a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary (and economic) Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security

IV. Outlook: dynamism ahead?

Dynamism ahead? a. b. c. d. e.

Monetary (and economic) Policy Cohesion Policy Agricultural Policy Foreign Policy Policies concerning the Area of Freedom, Justice, and Security Î Day-to-day crises, financial restrictions Î different MS positions in key areas, major treaty revisions not probable

Plan of lecture 19.10.

Introduction – European Studies and political science

14.12. Policy-making in Europe I

26.10.

Theorizing European integration 4.1. I

Policy-making in Europe II

2.11.

How to write a term paper in a German university

Policy-making in Europe III

9.11.

Theorizing European integration 18.1. II

European politics and democracy

16.11.

Theorizing European integration 25.1. III

Towards new paradigms? The end of integration and EU skepticism

23.11.

Guest speaker: Where are we with the Lisbon Treaty

Final exam

30.11.

The institutions of the European Union I

7.12.

The institutions of the European Union II

11.1.

1.2.

...Thank you for your attention !!